Mellinia

if a computer offers access through something like sshd, or a network directory through LAN, it is possible to use a program, that you call using the terminal to access the other computer.

One thing I use a lot from my terminal is `ssh`, which allows me to access my remote server so I can host my websites on them.

I think you should elaborate by telling us why do you think it shouldnt be called a OOP language.

TLDR : Mining with commerical cards are much more profitable than using specialized hardware due to electrical fees.

46 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

Cross posting is considered rude/spamming in most forums.

Im not sure where to post this as it is a cross disciplinary post.

I came across this perspective when I realize using the CRISPR gene editing technology in the context of synthetic biology is basically doing code/DLL injection. In another way of seeing it, it is akin to installing chrome extensions (though this isn't really accurate because chrome extensions requires explicit permission, but this will be an easier example to use than a computer virus) to add or modify functionality of chrome. Chrome extensions are able to modify and monitor everything you do in the browser, and with what genes we have designed and inserted into the genetic host, we can do something similar.

This got me thinking if a new perspective can be drawn to solve biology problems. Computer engineers design one of the most resilient and precise systems known to man (This may sound like a joke to you, but you will realize that the reason why your car and airplanes all work as expected with all the programs in them is because of the effort the engineers made to make them secure and resilient). No matter how much you hammer away or abuse your computer, you don't expect all the billions and trillions of electronic parts to just give up on you. Hospital systems, rocket systems, these are all systems resilient to failure. Modern software OS-s has integrity checks, auto-repair and security schemes designed to protect the information in your computer and prevent all the extra programs you install from going on a rampage. Some times there will be failures, but we can expect the program to be better the next time a security patch rolls out. I do not mention UI/UX because this is pretty subjective, but security systems in of itself it something to behold.

There are many parallels that can be drawn from both our human body and computer systems (including the network systems all the way to kernel software). For example, protein networks/reaction chains can be thought of computer ABIs and program flow processes. One can hook onto them by hijacking one part of the flow. In bio systems it would be gene injection as mentioned at the start of this post and in software it can be DLL injection.

Take for example, cancer. I know cancer is a bit too complex to be taken as an example, but it is also one of the easiest, IMO to illustrate this. I will skip a lot of details because being nit-picky will only stifle the discussion. Cancer has two main high-level problems : the cancer genetic mutation and the cancer micro-environment. The cancer genetic mutation by external factors can be thought in terms of software memory corruption, which can be caused by a faulty installed program or accidental memory rewriting by another program. In modern software, this is mitigated by integrity checks and auto-repair systems where the system just copy-pasts working environments. If this doesn't work, software engineers can opt to do in-memory patching of the faulty software. In biological terms, integrity checks are performed by our immune system, who also deletes faulty programs/cells.  The immune system is also capable of killing cancer cells. However, there is another factor in preventing this, which is the cancer micro-environment.

In a summary, the cancer tumor covers itself in a mesh of normal cells, creates an acidic environment and creates interstitial pressure. This is a major design problem that a lot of cancer medicine has to solve in drug delivery. In terms of computer engineering, the corrupted program has barricaded itself behind a locked segment of memory, where high level programs cannot reach (user privileges), where it also faces resistance from the corrupted program which overwrites and shifts its memory footprint dynamically. The easiest way software engineers deal with this is to nuke the memory segment: deleting it from memory. We also do this with cancer tumors by removing the tumour directly. However, the cancer cells / corrupted programs, might still survive within the body. Computers typically have scanning programs that check through all of the memory. These programs are more commonly known as anti-viruses. However, our body does not have a proper full body scan that checks every cell except the over-worked WBCs.

Essentially we have developed a highly scalable solution for our computers, why can't we do the same thing for our body, like developing new antivirus programs for our favourite OS-s.

Having said all this, I would like to extend this perspective by working with people from both biology and computer engineering fields in suggesting new places where this perspective will help, and spark a new discussion about this.

Just a quick question, before I jump into helping Rajnish Kaushik with his C++. How hard is C++. Is it to the point, or is it crazily stupid and has horrible syntax like JavaScript does.(I strongly dislike JavaScript, JQuerys fine though) How hard is it going from Java to C++. Is it an OO language. And do you peoples have any good links.

 

Thanks

 

Joshua

Actually, going from Java to C++ will not be difficult language features wise, but you might miss the libraries available for Java. While C++ does have some quirks (String^ and std::cout anyone?), it is an OO language in the sense that it allows classes to be use. Unlike Python or Ruby though, everything is not an object in C++.

About C++ being hard, you've already learnt Java threads and stuff, right? So you'll get along just fine. Though you may need to wrap your head around how pointers and memory management work (I believe C++ now has GC), and understand what are abstractions in Java, and what is the possibly low level equivalent in C++.

Though about JS, it's not about the syntax, it's that when you go from a consistent language (like Python) into JS, you'll mainly go mad because of the implicit magic. I went from C++ into Python and back into Java and found it okay, I guess, though I may only use Java now for Android, and C# or D(this one in particular works to solve C++ inconsistencies) is a better option for compiled languages, I guess , while Python is just so beautiful that looking at Ruby even gives me a headache.

It's my senior year in high school and I've been trying to figure out exactly what I want to do as a career. I love mathematics and had originally decided to go into a field of physics so as to add some practicality to the math. Over the last year or so, however, I've become increasingly interested in computers and specifically their low level, hardware functionality. As such, I have tried thinking of ways in which I can combine my love for math and computers into one field or profession. Normally, I would go right into a career in computer science or computer engineering but I always hear of the low job prospects that computer science holds in the future. Any suggestions guys? Thanks.

Well, you could try looking into some computer science papers for a start. AFAIK, most papers (even Python ones!) assume a good foundation in maths to understand the algorithms. The point is, computer science, looking into algorithms, understanding pointers, abstractions, (if your CS programme doesn't have it...good luck.) is a little mind-bending, if you never programmed before, but having a foundation of logic (by maths) helps out a lot.

Low job prospects probably refer to the fact that since CS is not really easy, most just maybe wander around the so-so part when companies want competent programmers, especially startups who want only the best and brightest (See Joel Spolsky's blog for info on what startups do, and also on lamenting how some CS programmes now teaches Java instead of C)

If you want to learn on how to write programs, I would suggest Python, since with Garbage Collection, terse and readable code, a nice set of libraries, it will ease a lot of the beginner's mind on how to write the program, instead of wrangling with how to make my program work.

As you progress along python, you will slowly meet obstacles that would require an in-depth understanding of how memory work, etc. This is done gradually after you have developed a consistent model of how to write a program (this is the most important thing of all) since python is beginner friendly and consistent.

As for programs where you'll start to need the speed of compiled languages, try out D, which is essentially C++ done right. D leaves a lot of freedom to the programmer, yet provide a safe place to test their limits.

I've used Python and only started C++/Java/D in that order after the need for faster execution. However, I still maintain the coding style I've used in Python: Write by humans, for humans.

Python encourages you to focus on the content of the code, not the words(syntax) of it.

 

Isn't it true that the characteristics that all matter has is gravity and inertia and the only matter has gravity and inertia?

 

Isn't it possible one is the effect of the other? Where one exists the other must exist in equal proportion.

 

 

I'd be inclined to say that both gravity and inertia are undefined in a universe with no matter or only a single "piece" of matter.

 

If more matter were introduced then velocity and inertia could be defined and gravity would exist.

Inertia could be seen as more of a fictional property. The object would continue at it's current velocity if there were no net force on the object. It is not an inherent property.

Gravity is not an property of matter. Where did you get that idea? In a vacuum very far from any other masses(You can choose many massive objects to show this), the massive object will experience no effects of gravity. Does the matter still exist as matter? Yes. It does not need gravity to prove it is matter.

 

Yes as in infinite. This is one of the problems dealing with pointlike particles. The equation goes like this

 

 

[math]U = \int_{|r| < R} \frac{\epsilon_0}{2} E^2 dr = \frac{e^2}{8 \pi \epsilon_0 R}[/math]

When the radius [math]R \rightarrow 0[/math] the energy [math]U[/math] is infinite, note that [math]E[/math] is the electric field! This means that classical physics predicts an infinite energy for the electron (which would result in an infinite bare mass). It's ludicrous to think that is even a physical property of the world, so something appears to be either:

 

A) something wrong with the mathematical approach or

 

B) particles are not actually pointlike.

 

And yes [math]M[/math] is the mass and in the theory, it characterizes the possible mass of all particles.

Thus are you saying that the intrisic charge is related to it's mass? FOR e^2 =4 /PI /EPSILON G M^2, should I take M as eletron mass?

 

 

I wasn't the one who mentioned the self-force, but there should be one in this theory for the interior of the particle.

 

You also note that self-energy is a suspicious term? Not quite sure what you mean here, even pointlike particles have a self-energy, except that this energy is described as being infinite!

As in E=mc^2 infinite?

M is included in your theory as the total mass in the system?

I just read this again and realized I never actually answered your question. There could be a self-force of particles, even in this model, it would be called a gravitational self-force. The Abraham-Dirac classical equation describing the self-force of a particle is a tad different perhaps, but it involves peculiar things like an increasing charge with a change in position! I wouldn't actually know how to calculate the self-force of a particle, especially in a relativistic manner as this would include retarded and advanced forms of the Green's function, the tool itself used to calculate self-energy.

Accelerated electrons emit photons as a consequence of the light speed limit, and mass particles may do the same, but this is a recoil force, describing the energy loss as a consequence of it's own EM field, and not the whole energy of the electron system, so while "self-force" is right (recoil, much?), self-energy...a bit suspicious?

Anyhow, e^2 = 4 /pi /epsilon_0 GM^2, what is M? This could be an arbitrary mass? Though I did do some calcs and if e is the elementary charge, and other constants are what they are from the CODATA website, M should be around 1.857e-9 kg....?

I'd like to point out, that GM^2/r is actually a gravitational self-energy.

 

It can, as Swansont pointed out, is also a description of potential energy... depending on the text you read. In this work, it is a gravitational self-energy with a numerator describing the gravitational charge (the self-mass of the system).

 

The gravitational charge Gm^2 is related to the energy and the radius as Er. Actually, this is the gravitational charge squared.

Taking a spherical cow...lol jking

If I were to simplify this into a point mass, the point mass would exert an gravitational force on anything that enters it's field, but the force won't be exerted on itself, right? Drawing an analogy to EM, would a +ve charge be affected by it's own electric field? How does this cause "self-energy"?

Units look OK. E=GMm/r is the equation for potential energy, so Er = GM^2 is fine.

so M^2 means that the object is experiencing a force by itself on itself (the author said that this was related to the energy of a system)?

On the right side: Er = Joule meters = (kgms^-2 )(m^2) => ML^3 T^-2

On the left: GM^2 = (ms^-2 )(m^2)(kg) =>ML^3 T^-2
by F= GMm / r^2, GM= Fr^2/ m = (kgms^-2 )(m^2)(kg^-1)=(ms^-2 )(m^2)

LHS = RHS but I have no idea of the physics behind it.

E_g = integral V_g over dr and V =- GM/ r but does GM^2 mean that the object is exerting a force on itself?

Is there any place(link?) where I can read on Er=GM^2 ? Is M being the total mass of the system, and E being the total energy in the system?

The idea does not have to be contradictory to Einsteins theories.

In fact they talk of one and the same phenomenon in my opinion :

Gravity particles pushing towards the core of the object concentrically is what causes the curvature.

My dear, GR does not push anything. The object just follows it's path in spacetime, it won't know the path is curved until there's another Frame Of Reference.

You have not answered "How does mass concentrated on one point in space contribute to more "force particles" pushing into it?".

Is there something that produces the force particles?

How does mass concentrated on one point in space contribute to more "force particles" pushing into it?

p.s. Currently GR approaches gravity to say that space time is curved when mass-energy is there, nothing pushing, nothing pulling, the object just follows that curved path.

Is the supposed field spherically oriented inwards?

Where does the friction factor into that?

Friction is an external force, in most cases where the objects rub the ground. In the case where it is an internal force:

if two objects rub against each other, by Newtons third law, the friction forces will be equal in magnitude but in different directions for each object respectively.

Information transfer is not the same as energy transfer. You might want to read up on quantum entanglement.

Yes, based on the mechanical imagery of a common sense view of how a force of attraction can be conveyed from one object to another within a vacuum. It is the imagery of an emitted spinning Archimedes screw particle. If a right-hand spinning thread particle interacts with another, then a small force of attraction due to it's spin will be produced. In the picture shown as an analogy, the entire Archimedes screw would be emitted to the bottom right of the screen. When it interacts with another helical object, the direction of the force will be represented by the direction of the red ball.

 

If so, would an object falling through an gravitational field be deviated to the side because of that lateral deviation?

I did that, and it's still hard to discern.

Is this mathematical/image proof that electric force electric theory is wrong? Maybe not?

 

This might belong in the other thread, but I decided to make a new one for it for now.

 

How electric parallel circuits should work (I think).

 

battery and wire force 1.jpg

 

How they work in parallel in reality(I think).[

 

attachment=5714:battery and wire force 2.jpg]

 

Gravity seems to have the same effect on water.

Maybe the second image is 2 force and energy instead of 1 force and energy.

In addition, the energy will be conserved but the force applied on the wires(Very hard to discern from your images) will not be conserved, so thinking that it will be halved might be wrong